Scott Reynolds wrote:

> On 10/20/2004 10:04 PM, Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > Please tell me more about how all Americans in your pathetically limited knowledge
> > are angry. Are you ignorant, or are you lying, or are you exaggerating?
>
> I suppose he is thinking of the people who learned about the massacre
> when they saw the photo pictorial about it in Life magazine, as I did
> when I was a kid. I was shocked, disgusted, angry, bewildered, etc.,
> when I saw it, and I suspect that many others felt the same.

Ernest explicitly claims he knows no one NOT angry. I don't care that "many" Americans
are angry.

Based on my own limited knowledge, I don't know a single person (offline) who expresses
anger about My Lai, for example. And I used to get into arguments with my own parents,
registered Democrats, about US history. Because they, as children of the 40s and 50s,
were raised to think quite differently about their country the US. They never
criticized Vietnam, or any President or his policies that I can recall.

No exaggeration or lie.

> No one who saw those photos at that time -- when they were still news, in other
> words -- could possibly forget them.

So explain the mixed reaction and denial, please.

> It's like Abu Ghraib.

Indeed. Many do, but many still don't give a damn today about treatment of (suspected)
terrorists or insurgents.

> A picture is worth a thousand words. Just as many
> people are angry now about abuses committed by US service personnel,
> many more people were angry then, because the abuses were so much worse.

And what of what we do not know, or are not allowed to know, then or now, such as the
other atrocities in the region around even just My Lai, or in the rest of the country?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can shove
more than three burgers in my mouth!"